Intel Launches Core i9 14900KS, Clocking Up To 6.2GHz

[skeevy420]

Do not buy, Jesus! Is anyone pointing a gun at you or something? What's up with all the people freaking out here about one of literally ~100 CPU SKUs you can buy right now?

Can you calm the fuck down please? Or it's a Linux forum, so naturally the vast majority of people are simply not exactly sane/rational/calm?

Aaaaaaaaaah, the world is ending, Intel is selling an unnecessary for you CPU!! Is that it?

I could have understood it if people here had been children/teenagers but, no, we have adults. Sigh.

For what it costs, what it does, and what they're advertising it for in the few slides I saw, games, there are literally ~100 CPU SKUs that cost at least 1/3 less with the same or better performance in games. If you're a gamer, this processor is the digital version of jacking up your pickup truck and using it as a commuter vehicle.

I'm not saying it isn't a bad processor. I'm just pointing out the absurdity in marketing it to gamers. If you're buying this just to play games you're Kompletely Stupid. There's maybe a use-case if you're a streamer, but that's it in regards to gaming use....or you're into Stellaris with large galaxies...

It'd be a kick ass workstation CPU. It's just too much for games.

[npwx]

Does Intel force you or anyone else buy their CPUs? No? Maybe there's no competition or better products in terms of performance per price?

Why do people get so wound up about such things on the internet? Move along. Live happily ever after.

The amount of indignation over the fucking 100% niche CPU is simply staggering.

Maybe it just makes people feel good to piss on Intel after having bought their overpriced CPUs that loose large percentages of performance on a regular basis because Intel preferred to make stock holders and management happy instead of developing an actually working and fast CPU. I know I need this from time to time ...

[sophisticles]

Intel has the whole T lineup for you but you didn't bothered looking it up, right? Just being mad like everyone else here?

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/236791/intel-core-i9-processor-14900t-36m-cache-up-to-5-50-ghz.html

Base power 36W! Boost power 106W! literally any cooler can handle it and if you disable boost, you can run it with passive cooling.

A) Nowhere did i express anger,

B) That processor you linked to is not the processor I said i was hoping they would make.

[sophisticles]

Do not buy, Jesus! Is anyone pointing a gun at you or something? What's up with all the people freaking out here about one of literally ~100 CPU SKUs you can buy right now?

Can you calm the fuck down please? Or it's a Linux forum, so naturally the vast majority of people are simply not exactly sane/rational/calm?

Aaaaaaaaaah, the world is ending, Intel is selling an unnecessary for you CPU!! Is that it?

I could have understood it if people here had been children/teenagers but, no, we have adults. Sigh.

Do not buy, Jesus! <-- Possibly good advice, do you recommend renting instead?

It's also hysterical that you tell everyone else to calm the fuck down please when you can't seem to follow your own advice.

[mrg666]

Practically, 6.2 GHz is just for 1-2 loaded threads. I would not even try to run this thing all cores at 6.2 and then cool 400w of heat. I have overclocked my 13700k to 6 GHz for only two threads, all cores is 5.3 GHz and it still burns 250w with 100% load. On the other hand, I have two Ryzen 5950 workstations which never exceed 140w at 100% load and all I want for Christmas is a 7950. I love Ryzen 9.

[NeoMorpheus]

I don't hate Intel. I dislike the tactic of just raising power limits and passing that off as innovation.

Well, I do fucking hate Intel and Ngreedia.

Due to their illegal actions, anti consumer tactics and in Ngreedias case, their hate for open source and open standards, so the white knight that’s hounding you can kiss my behind.

sorry for the rant, but it pisses me off how those two keep getting free passes.

On topic, the power consumption its way worse than stated:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEvszQIRIU4

[coder]

Intel made RPL to be as fast as possible at the expense of power consumption.
AMD made Zen 3D CPUs to be efficient since the 3D cache poses its own challenges thus AMD was basically forced to do it.

Mind the difference and then maybe we shouldn't even compare them or make fun of Intel. They will have their 3D moment sooner or later. It's not some sorcery available only to AMD.

Intel already had Broadwell with a large fourth level cache. And it was super efficient for apps not fitting into L1/L2/L3 caches:

We have to consider the products as they exist. As an end user who is shopping for something today, it doesn't help me if Intel put L4 cache in some versions of Broadwell. That CPU is no longer current, nor is it competitive with current models.

The argument "but Intel did it first" is the type of argument you only hear fanboys say.

[coder]

Note the fine print on intel's site, where that 150w TDP is only when running at the base frequency. If you have the turbo boost feature enabled, 14900ks peaks at over 250w. Yikes, and no thanks.

150 W is the recommended long-term average power limit, but it turns out that most aftermarket motherboards default to higher or even unlimited PL1. At that point, they become thermally-limited, because you probably can't cool them well enough to sustain their theoretical all-core max frequency.

The way they define "base frequency" is that it's the minimum expected frequency on a strenuous (but unspecified) multithreaded workload, when running at the base power limit and adequately cooled. It's typical to see real-world frequencies that are above "base frequency", even on demanding multithreaded workloads, when restricted to "base power". That's because their "strenuous workload" is typically a lot more strenuous than software people use in the real world.

[t.s.]

Intel has the whole T lineup for you but you didn't bothered looking it up, right? Just being mad like everyone else here?

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/236791/intel-core-i9-processor-14900t-36m-cache-up-to-5-50-ghz.html

Base power 36W! Boost power 106W! literally any cooler can handle it and if you disable boost, you can run it with passive cooling.

Still believing Intel TDP/PL1/PL2/PLx?

https://www.servethehome.com/dell-optiplex-7000-intel-alder-lake-tinyminimicro-pc-review/4/

[mrg666]

I'm not an expert on these things, but my limited understanding is that undervolting is one way people managed to tame the instability problems. However, that can also cause CEP to become overactive. Because CEP throttles the CPU when it thinks there's an over-current event, you needlessly lose performance if you leave CEP enabled when undervolting.

So, disabling CEP isn't the solution to the instability, but rather something you'd do to mitigate the side-effects of undervolting.

A benchmark like Intelburntest helps with finding if CEP is engaged. With CEP, unless undervolting is too low, crashes are mostly eliminated. But I have seen up to 50% performance loss. So, best undervolt is just high enough vcore to avoid engaging CEP and start losing performance.